"Land-attack capability via cruise and/or non-nuclear ballistic missiles"

Canada needs nukes.

I agree with the author's conclusion that the KSS-III is the most sensible choice at this moment. However this does not mean that our navy does not also need 212CDs. Unfortunately it probably, knowing Canadian politics, means we won't ever get them.

This phrase is rather telling:

since Arctic sovereignty remains popular within Liberal and Conservative circles alike

The fact that "sovereignty" is considered a political question at all, and is merely "popular" and not "essential" is beautifully emblematic of the completely absurd Canadian point of view on the issue. If we are not willing to defend our North, then we frankly do not deserve it, and almost certainly will not have it for much longer.

such pure disgusting treason. Everyone responsible for this analysis needs to be labeled as a traitor or at least fired.

these subs will be expected to deploy far into the North Atlantic with NATO and push across the Pacific to support the Indo-Pacific Strategy

The only mission any Canadian military equipment procurement strategy needs to focus only on defending and attacking the US. If we need a sub, it is to destroy American harbours, and blockade any commerce or oil rigs. All concepts of aiding US domination of the world must be suspended until we at very least get our fair share in the evil pillaging.

It's great that we are building a large VW engineered battery factory. If we need subs, the German coastal one is the choice, and if it is purchased, the money should be reinvested into a VW EV plant. If we don't need subs because we don't understand a need to fight/destroy the US, then we should use the money to make an EV plant.